Our skill is perhaps best illustrated by the results we’ve achieved for our clients. We’ve represented high tech companies, major banks, municipalities and other governmental entities, investment firms, real estate developers and consumer product manufacturers, among many others. Our record of success with these clients is the most powerful testament to our abilities. And we have a lot of major wins to talk about. They include not only big jury verdicts or judgments but also cases where we’ve obtained dismissals on summary judgment or turned the tables to give our clients an advantage in what initially may have appeared to be a weak case.

Here are some examples of cases where we have been able to turn the tables, beat the odds, or just plain out-lawyer, out-smart, or out-work the opponent–even those with greater resources. For more examples of our work by practice area please go to Our Practice; to learn more about our approach to litigation, go to Our Firm.

InfoFlows v. Corbis Corp.

We represented a start-up company and its founder in consolidated litigation arising from the development of technology for tracking digital objects over the internet and related claims for breach of contract, fraud, and trade secret misappropriation. We defeated a motion for a temporary restraining order, a motion for a preliminary injunction, and four motions for summary judgment. We developed and asserted our clients’ claims, and dug up the evidence to support them. After a three-week jury trial, we obtained a $36 million verdict in our client’s favor, and defeated all counterclaims.

Lane v. Port of Seattle and King County

We represented King County in litigation concerning the legality of the acquisition of a 42-mile rail corridor for use in establishing a trail system. The case was a putative class action in which Port of Seattle ratepayers represented by experienced class action counsel sought to rescind the transaction, arguing that the defendants lacked the statutory authority to acquire the corridor. We aggressively managed discovery; successfully opposed class certification; and filed and argued a comprehensive motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied class certification and granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against our client.

Bank One v. Westar Financial Services

We defended one of the largest banks in the United States against a billion-dollar claim that personally involved the bank’s CEO alleging breach of contract and other duties by the bank in connection with auto lease securitizations. We initially obtained a preliminary injunction enabling the leases to be serviced, which required us to persuade the district court to withdraw the reference from the bankruptcy court. Then, after targeted discovery, we obtained a summary judgment dismissing the claims against the bank in their entirety, and developed and asserted a counterclaim that resulted in a multi-million-dollar recovery for our client.

Alliance Packaging v. Altivity Packaging, et al.

We represented the plaintiff in this contentious, multi-million-dollar patent infringement suit. The defendants, represented by a national patent litigation firm, raised virtually every defense available in a patent case: they disputed the construction of the patents, challenged inventorship, alleged inequitable conduct and fraud in the prosecution of the patent-in-suit, claimed there was no infringement in any event, disputed damages, and asserted numerous counterclaims. The court adopted the construction of the patent we advanced on Alliance’s behalf at the Markman hearing and then, after extensive discovery, ruled in Alliance’s favor on multiple summary judgment motions. Following these rulings, Alliance obtained a very favorable settlement on the eve of trial—and it achieved these results having spent only a fraction of the legal fees incurred by the defendants.

Otrubova v. City of Seattle

We defended the City against tort and inverse condemnation claims brought by a lakefront property owner relating to damages allegedly caused by a storm water outfall. The plaintiffs filed two separate lawsuits and pursued them aggressively. Through strategic discovery and motions practice, we obtained the dismissal of one of the cases outright and the dismissal of key claims in the other case. After a multi-week jury trial on the remaining claims, we obtained a complete defense verdict. We then represented the City on appeal, and both judgments were affirmed.

Straitshot Communications v. Telekenex

We represented a telecommunications provider on claims that a competitor wrongfully damaged its business by disseminating false information to customers and hacking into its system and stealing records and information. Following a four-week jury trial in United States District Court, our clients obtained a multi-million-dollar judgment on claims for violations of the Washington Unfair Trade Practices Act and for tortious interference with customer relationships. In addition, our clients received a substantial award of attorneys’ fees and costs, and an award for the spoliation of evidence by certain defendants.

Lai v. Alfa Enterprises, et al.

We represented the defendants in a suit alleging breach of contract and fraud arising out of an agreement allowing the plaintiff to operate and then purchase a restaurant business. Although the sale never closed, the plaintiff claimed to have fully performed. We counterclaimed for damages for breach of the parties’ agreement, alleging that the plaintiff still owed money for the period in which she operated the restaurant. We obtained the dismissal on summary judgment of all non-contract claims. After a one-week trial on the remaining contract issues, the jury returned a defense verdict resulting in a judgment against the plaintiff, including prejudgment interest.

National Flood Services v. Torrent Technologies

We defended a start-up company and its founders against a panoply of claims (breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, copyright infringement, etc.) asserted by a global provider of financial services technology. We initially defeated a motion for temporary restraining order, and subsequently obtained a summary judgment ruling that invalidated and declared void the asserted non-competition agreements. Following these rulings, the case was resolved on very favorable terms.

We defended multi-million-dollar inverse condemnation litigation against the City of Seattle relating to work on the region’s light rail system. The plaintiffs sued the rail system and the City, alleging that the rail system’s construction work had destroyed their business, asserting inverse condemnation and various tort and statutory theories. We aggressively managed extensive discovery and protected the City’s interests, most notably in the defense of the depositions of a number of key witnesses. We then brought and argued a summary judgment motion on the City’s behalf. The district court dismissed all claims against our client and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Titus v. Bank One

We represented a major national bank in litigation arising from derivatives transactions, in which the plaintiff sought not only multi-million-dollar damages but also injunctive relief under trade practices and anti-fraud statutes. We elicited damaging admissions in discovery, and then obtained a summary judgment dismissing these claims in their entirety and an award of the attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against them.

Alki Condominium Association v. City of Seattle

We defended the City against a $2.3 million claim for damages to a condominium building resulting from a massive landslide that originated on City-owned property. Following substantial discovery and motions practice, we defended the City in a multi-week jury trial and obtained a complete defense verdict.

Streeter v. Largo LLC

We represented the developer of an office building in litigation against the architect. Our client entered into a fixed-fee contract for architectural services. When the architect went over budget, he sued our client in breach of contract. We developed and prosecuted counterclaims for architectural malpractice, which became the primary focus of the litigation. After discovery, summary judgment and other motions practice, and three mediations throughout which our client stood its ground, we began trial. Eventually all claims against our client were dismissed, the architect agreed to a substantial judgment in our client’s favor, and the court awarded our client more than 90% of the fees and costs it incurred.